Ohio Builder Pays $41 Million in False Claims Case

Ohio-based RPM International Inc. and its subsidiary, Tremco Inc., have paid $60.9 million to resolve allegations that Tremco filed false claims in connection with contracts with the General Services Administration (GSA) for roofing supplies and services, federal authorities announced. A whistleblower in the qui tam case will receive $10.9 million as his portion of the settlement. Read More.

http://www.whistleblowerprotection.com/ohio-builder-pays-41-million-in-false-claims-case/

I believe there was approximately $ 96,000,000 erased from the market cap of this stock, before any results were released. As far as I know, shareholders sold very very little, and that some shareholders even bought more stock during this time span of 2-3 months. If you look above, you will see that approx a percentage of 18% was paid to the whistleblower, that would equate to a possible $17 million to the whistleblower in this type of scenario. If a hedge fund, for example, were to be responsible for what happened, there could be a hefty fee to pay upon conviction, imo. Also IMO, this is the sloppiest case of SP manipulation I have ever seen. There are 8 year old children that can see this, so I am quite confident that a trained professional/s should be able to see it clearly as well. I believe the media sees this as well, lets wait and see if they publish a story on it.

You say;

2) You suggest that a single person can walk a shareprice down but where is the proof of this happening with SLI. The regulators have certainly not found it and they have infinitly nore informatipn at thier disposal than you do.

I say;

b) I didn,t say a single person brought the sp of SLI down, I said in theory, yes it is possible that one entity can do it. Or one umbrella group acting on behalf of one entity. If there is proof of this, I am sure the regulators can find it quite easily. You cannot say that the regulators have not found this evidence, how could you say this? You cannot say this unless you know, and if you know, you can not trade in this stock, nor can management do a PP if this is fact, whereas they cannot be in receipt of this unpublic information and participate in trading or fundraising for the stock. I will add here, sometimes investigations take years, how do you know that the regulators may be ready to release information any day in connection with this? And if the regulators havent found anything, it may suggest something seriously wrong with the regulators. I will mention here that TSX policy for their internal regulators at one time, required little training by these employees upon taking the job. This leaves a large area of concern by the investors relying on the efficiency of such regulators offering the protection to investors, as they display.

You say;

3)Is it not more plausible to think that the stocl price fell because of poor results, then a lack of news and activity, then further declined due to a proxy fight and yet further with a legal fight and finally to its current price as its the ability for SLI tp remain as a gping concern hinges on thier ability to finanxe in one of the most brutal marketa in the history of the venture exchange. I guess all of that is irrelevent in terms of share price and was not a factor in precipitous selli.g of stock by a multitude of retail share holders.

c) No, its not more plausible to think the SP fell because of poor results, because in fact, the SP fell long before any initial results were ever publicly released. The stock price had been decimated to perhaps ~.15, at the time of the proxy fight announcement, so that definitely cannot be blamed for the continuous pressure downward on the SP from Jan -Oct 2012.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/stocks/summary/?q=SLI-X

I should add that the CEO,s selling during the decline of the SP only disuaded confidence in the SP and not in the shareholders, whereas they didn,t sell, but her actions helped discouraged new funds for coming in perhaps.

This is definitely not the most brutal market, 2008 was worst, but this company made it through that time most likely because of the very strong shareholder base that Murry helped assemble. I should also say, that the market could get worst yet and that is definitely not the shareholders fault, but perhaps the fault of the ones that allowed the tsx mining companies get decimated. Natural market catalysts should not affect this stock to this degree we have suffered, whereas this stock is tightly held.

The last sentence, is not correct to me, I know of very very little selling by these retail shareholders, and this only reiterates the suspicious fact of the SP degreasing so much.

You say;

4)Some of what you say may have a certain degree of validity but to ignor obviouse reasons for a real sell off is foolish.

I say;

d) I believe after you have read what I said above, this may change your perspective of the obvious reasons, of which you speak.

IMO

Thank you